Oct 27, 2012 3 min read

Bob Casey is in the midst of a lively contest for another term in the U.S. Senate that he probably was not counting on having. No high-profile Republican emerged to oppose him, leaving self-made coal executive Tom Smith to surface in the spring from a field of GOP candidates that would struggle to reach the “lackluster” designation. But Smith, with his up-by-the-bootstraps story and, perhaps more importantly, a bank account that can be richly mined, has made what looked at the outset to be an easy cruise to re-election much more of a nail-biter for Pennsylvania’s senior senator. Though he has not been at the forefront of the legislative battles that have raged over the last six years, Casey has brought a low-key competence to Capitol Hill that, on balance, has served Pennsylvania well. For that reason, we believe he deserves another term in the U.S. Senate. Casey won the seat in 2006 by resoundingly defeating Sen. Rick Santorum, riding a Democratic wave set in motion by disgust over the Iraq war and the toll it was exacting on American lives and treasure, and benefiting by being the son of the late former Gov. Robert Casey. But, the Iraq war aside, Pennsylvanians had reason to be weary of the polarizing Santorum, thanks to his uncompromising, hard-right positions on social issues like gay rights and birth control. At times, it seemed Santorum aspired less to follow in the footsteps of Hugh Scott or Philander Knox than Tomas de Torquemada. Apparently less interested in generating headlines and lingering in the spotlight, Casey has worked diligently, if unspectacularly, on such issues as natural gas and agricultural development, promoting medical research and helping unemployed veterans find jobs or start businesses. The week before last, Casey told members of the Observer-Reporter’s editorial board “when you represent a state like Pennsylvania, you have an obligation to represent the diversity of the state.” A moderate, Casey has provided a refreshing contrast from Santorum. He has what he describes as “a good relationship” with Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania’s junior senator and a Republican, though he cautions it’s a good relationship “to the extent that you can do that in this environment.” Of particular importance to this region is the Marcellus Shale industry, and Casey has spearheaded measures to increase the use of natural gas and train workers for jobs in the industry. He hasn’t been an unthinking apologist for the industry, though, having pushed legislation that would mandate the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Smith did not speak to the Observer-Reporter’s editorial board, though he was folksy and amiable in conversation with a reporter from the newspaper in the spring and has argued his positions forcefully and with conviction. However, we find the agenda Smith would like to pursue if he were to go to Washington, D.C., to be worrisome. He advocates replacing the current Medicare system with a voucher program that would put seniors at the mercy of the insurance market, partially privatizing Social Security and repealing the Affordable Care Act. For those who feel Casey has been uninspiring but worry about what a Sen. Tom Smith would support, this could well be an occasion to vote your fears, not your hopes. In his six years in Washington, D.C., we believe Casey has been less a show horse than a workhorse. We would like to see him continue in his endeavors.